The Good side of Harper

[JLM]

Harper brought in income splitting for taxation purposes, last year it saved us about $2000. This year due to the tax calculations being so mind boggling I let H & R Bloch do it for us and to my relief found we're saving $1800 this year. Obviously it works best where there is a disparity between the income levels of the spouses, which is our case. For this reason alone I'd be very reluctant to get rid of Harper.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Good side of Harper? You mean there is a good side to the Messiah?

As I understand, you are allowed to income split only on the pension, retirement income. You cannot income split the investment income. So it is not of much use to us, in the retirement (which I hope would be soon, I have been after my wife to retire, I can’t retire until she does), most of our income will come from investment, so income splitting isn’t of much use to us.

Besides, when Liberals come back into power (and it is a question of ‘when’, not ‘if’), they are not likely to get rid of income splitting. So I hardly think where Messiah is at an advantage here. If a politician wants senior citizen vote, he has to promise to leave income splitting alone, so I don’t think income splitting is going anywhere, Messiah or no Messiah.

 

[JLM]

He thought of it, the Liberals didn't.

 

[china]

JLM

He thought of it, the Liberals didn't.

There is nothing good that ever came from liberals .
Remember you heard this from China in Communist China ;where there is more Capitalism and more money making opprotunities, in a smallest village,than there is in all of socialistic ,pinky Canada; I know ....I live here and I lived there for 40 ys.

 

[Colpy]

I am a Conservative Party member.

I have some serious problems with Harper, in his tactical abilities (Damn, did he ever blow it when the "coalition " challenged his update), in the way he handles the party, and in his political philosophy.

BUT, I think he is a decent man. I think the demonization of him is entirely unfair......especially when one looks at dear old Mr. Chretien, the most popular PM since Trudeau.

Harper, on any scale of humanity, stands head and shoulders above either of those two men......neither one of whom could identify a principle if it junped up and bit him on the ass.

Which is part of Harper's problem: he does have principles.

That is why we are still in a combat role in Afghanistan, because Harper wishes to uphold our national honour by fulfilling our treaty obligations.....and because he believes the cause is in our national interest.

That is why we support Israel, because it is right to do so.........because the alternatives are simply beyond the Pale.

That is why we have thumbed our noses at China in minor ways......because they are an emerging fascist superpower, a threat to the west, and an extremely negative influence on the world.

That is why Harper attracts such scorn.....partially it is his manner, but for the most part, Canadians prefer their politicians with NO principles. Those with principles alienate people.....so unCanadian a thing to do!

As discontent as I am, that is why I will probably continue to vote CPC. A little principle is better than none.

I await the veritable tidalwave of incoming ridicule......... :-0

 

[Nuggler]

JLM
There is nothing good that ever came from liberals .
Remember you heard this from China in Communist China ;where there is more Capitalism and more money making opprotunities, in a smallest village,than there is in all of socialistic ,pinky Canada; I know ....I live here and I lived there for 40 ys.

An interesting start to my day...........

You must have seen that big news flash on Fox where the numbnuts like yourself got their 15 minutes of fame by dissing our military, and decided to give it a go re: Canada.

It would probably be easier making money off ignorant Chinese peasants than educated Canadians. Leave it to a lamer like you to try it.

Go poke some rice up your ass.

ho hum, time for coffee.

 

[Nuggler]

I am a Conservative Party member.


I await the veritable tidalwave of incoming ridicule......... :-0

No tidal wave here, Colpy. I certainly would not want to be in Harpo's shoes these days, as he has inherited a dandy recession/depression.

No one is going to force an election, and grab the sh@tty end of that stick, so he's stuck with it. Neither Harpo nor Iggy know WTF to do to get the economy going again. Jack is over in the corner looking in the mirror. :jerk:

Guess getting back all the offshored jobs is a no go.........mehhhhhhh8O Good luck to us.

 

[JLM]

Good side of Harper? You mean there is a good side to the Messiah?

As I understand, you are allowed to income split only on the pension, retirement income. You cannot income split the investment income. So it is not of much use to us, in the retirement (which I hope would be soon, I have been after my wife to retire, I can’t retire until she does), most of our income will come from investment, so income splitting isn’t of much use to us.

Besides, when Liberals come back into power (and it is a question of ‘when’, not ‘if’), they are not likely to get rid of income splitting. So I hardly think where Messiah is at an advantage here. If a politician wants senior citizen vote, he has to promise to leave income splitting alone, so I don’t think income splitting is going anywhere, Messiah or no Messiah.

You can split income from RRIFs.

 

[JLM]

"Harper, on any scale of humanity, stands head and shoulders above either of those two men......neither one of whom could identify a principle if it junped up and bit him on the ass." AND EVEN MORE SO OVER MULRONEY AND TRUDEAU.

 

[#juan]

Colpy a conservative? Who woulda thunk it...:roll:;-)

 

[#juan]

The latest Nanos poll puts the Liberals in front of the tories by a small margin with eleven percent undecided. I would say that we probably won't have a conservative government after the next election. Good side of Harper? Haven't seen that side yet.

 

[JLM]

Colpy a conservative? Who woulda thunk it...:roll:;-)

And probably not a bad thing.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

BUT, I think he is a decent man. I think the demonization of him is entirely unfair......especially when one looks at dear old Mr. Chrétien, the most popular PM since Trudeau.

Harper, on any scale of humanity, stands head and shoulders above either of those two men......neither one of whom could identify a principle if it junped up and bit him on the ass.

Sorry Colpy, but that is pure political partisanship speaking (incidentally, he may be decent man, but that does not make him a good PM). Trudeau will be remembered as one of the greatest PM ever, because of the fact that he gave us the Charter and repatriated the constitution. This achievement makes him stand taller than most other PMs, his horrible economic performance notwithstanding. Posterity won’t remember anything about his economic performance. 100 years from now; his economic performance will be forgotten. His accomplishment in giving us the Charter will be remembered as long as Canada lasts.

Trudeau will be remembered for posterity, nobody will remember Harper in say another 50 years. Unless he tanks the economy to unheard of depths, unheard of misery. Then he will gain a place in posterity along with Hoover, as the instigator of the Great Depression.

So in my opinion, Trudeau was orders of magnitude better than Harper. If not for Trudeau, Canada won’t be the country that it is today, one of the most liberal, most tolerant democracies in the world.

I will cover Chrétien/Martin in the next post.

 

[petros]

Didn't they make a movie about the Conservatives called Revenge of the Nerds?

They wouldn't be half bad if they weren't the geekiest bunch of wankers to ever take office.

They seriously lack testosterone.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Colpy, in the other forum, one conservative poster seriously claimed that Canada was much better off under Mulroney than under Chrétien. Now, I know many conservatives believe that anything good in Canada was done by a conservative, anything bad was done by a liberal. I can understand political partisanship.

But to claim that Canada was better off under Mulroney (with huge deficits, huge unemployment, economy in the tank, huge deficits, unheard of corruption, patronage etc.) than under Chrétien/Martin shows an effrontery rare even for a conservative.

Anyway, I never get mad, I get even. So I did some careful research as to how Canada really did perform under Chrétien/Martin. Canada had what I can only describe as the Golden Age under Chrétien/Martin. I think in years to come it will be remembered as a golden age.

By every criterion imaginable, Canada was a much better place when liberals left power, than when liberals took power. In the 13 years of Liberal rule, Canada progressed in every field; there was economic progress, cultural progress and social progress. Canadians were much healthier in 2005 than in 1992. Anyway, I have a link to my post in the Canada.com forum.



Why don't women vote for Harper? - Share It

It considers many categories to see how Liberal did in the 13 years, 1992 to 2005. Let me give some of the numbers here.

• Budget deficit - 40 billion $ deficit to 10 billion $ surplus. Economy went from being on life support to roaring ahead.
• Per capita income. Per capita income grew at the rate of 2.1% annually between 1993 - 1998 and 2.8% annually between 1999 and 2005.

• Life expectancy
  
  1993 - 77.7
  2005 - 80.1

• Infant morality.
  
  Infant morality: 5.4 per 1000 births in 2005.
  
  6.3 Per 1000 births in 1993.

• % of children living below poverty line.
  
  1993 - 22%
  2005 - 17.6%

• 1993: overall crime rate - more than 10,000 per 100,000 populations.
  
  2003 : overall crime rate: 8132 per 100,000 population

I have provided links to all these statistics in my original post.

Let us recap. After 13 years of Liberal rule, Canadians are richer, safer and live longer. The prosperity is shared by the poor as well as by the middle class; child poverty is down (though not down to the same level it was before Mulroney caused serious damage, caused a serious increase in child poverty).

It was truly a golden age in Canada. When conservatives came to power, of course, the economic shenanigans started almost immediately. One of the first acts of Harper was to give tax cuts (benefiting mostly the rich) which wiped out most of the surplus. Now we are looking at huge deficits as far as the eye can see.

Being a conservative, I can understand that you are proud of Messiah and ashamed of Chrétien/Martin, that is to be expected. However, objective facts don’t support your view. Canada prospered like never before under Chrétien/.Martin.

 

[Colpy]

BUT, I think he is a decent man. I think the demonization of him is entirely unfair......especially when one looks at dear old Mr. Chrétien, the most popular PM since Trudeau.

Harper, on any scale of humanity, stands head and shoulders above either of those two men......neither one of whom could identify a principle if it junped up and bit him on the ass.

Sorry Colpy, but that is pure political partisanship speaking (incidentally, he may be decent man, but that does not make him a good PM). Trudeau will be remembered as one of the greatest PM ever, because of the fact that he gave us the Charter and repatriated the constitution. This achievement makes him stand taller than most other PMs, his horrible economic performance notwithstanding. Posterity won’t remember anything about his economic performance. 100 years from now; his economic performance will be forgotten. His accomplishment in giving us the Charter will be remembered as long as Canada lasts.

Trudeau will be remembered for posterity, nobody will remember Harper in say another 50 years. Unless he tanks the economy to unheard of depths, unheard of misery. Then he will gain a place in posterity along with Hoover, as the instigator of the Great Depression.

So in my opinion, Trudeau was orders of magnitude better than Harper. If not for Trudeau, Canada won’t be the country that it is today, one of the most liberal, most tolerant democracies in the world.

I will cover Chrétien/Martin in the next post.

Pierre Elliot Trudeau

- destroyed the Canadian military

- greatly decreased our influence in the world (see above)

- started us down the road to massive debt

- gave us martial law, after two kidnappings

- began the uniquely Canadian habit of rule by OIC....bypassing Parliament, whom he refered to as "those nobodies"

- began the centralization of all power in the PM's office, making the nation an elected five year dictatorship (see above)

- repatriated the Constitution as a sop to his own ego...bypassing Quebec (and thus setting in motion subsequent unrest, culminating in the creation of the BQ, the near loss of the country in 1995) and including (at the behest of the Premiers) the "notwithstanding" clause, completely undermining the Charter (as shown by Quebec's use of same)

- took lying in elections to new lows (see the Wage and Price control thing, 1974)

- won the distrust of our allies

And that is just to start....I haven't even gotten into the idiocy of the failed policy of nation-wide bilingualism and Nanny-state control

The man was dangerous.....he killed Canada as we knew it.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

The man was dangerous.....he killed Canada as we knew it.

Colpy, really? Then how did he keep winning election after election? Even now he is very popular in Ontario and Quebec (As least he was according to the last poll I saw, which was a while ago).

You may not like him, and no doubt he had many faults. However, in my opinion, his repatriation of constitution and giving us the Charter trumps it all.

 

[VanIsle]

Good side of Harper? You mean there is a good side to the Messiah?

As I understand, you are allowed to income split only on the pension, retirement income. You cannot income split the investment income. So it is not of much use to us, in the retirement (which I hope would be soon, I have been after my wife to retire, I can’t retire until she does), most of our income will come from investment, so income splitting isn’t of much use to us.

Besides, when Liberals come back into power (and it is a question of ‘when’, not ‘if’), they are not likely to get rid of income splitting. So I hardly think where Messiah is at an advantage here. If a politician wants senior citizen vote, he has to promise to leave income splitting alone, so I don’t think income splitting is going anywhere, Messiah or no Messiah.

Because you do not get the benefit of income splitting, you have no idea how valuable it is to numerous households. Any government that disposed of this plan would be in deep trouble. For the liberals to take over, one thing they would have to promise is to keep the plan in place or they would lose votes.

 

[Colpy]

Colpy, in the other forum, one conservative poster seriously claimed that Canada was much better off under Mulroney than under Chrétien. Now, I know many conservatives believe that anything good in Canada was done by a conservative, anything bad was done by a liberal. I can understand political partisanship.

But to claim that Canada was better off under Mulroney (with huge deficits, huge unemployment, economy in the tank, huge deficits, unheard of corruption, patronage etc.) than under Chrétien/Martin shows an effrontery rare even for a conservative.

Anyway, I never get mad, I get even. So I did some careful research as to how Canada really did perform under Chrétien/Martin. Canada had what I can only describe as the Golden Age under Chrétien/Martin. I think in years to come it will be remembered as a golden age.

By every criterion imaginable, Canada was a much better place when liberals left power, than when liberals took power. In the 13 years of Liberal rule, Canada progressed in every field; there was economic progress, cultural progress and social progress. Canadians were much healthier in 2005 than in 1992. Anyway, I have a link to my post in the Canada.com forum.



Why don't women vote for Harper? - Share It

It considers many categories to see how Liberal did in the 13 years, 1992 to 2005. Let me give some of the numbers here.

• Budget deficit - 40 billion $ deficit to 10 billion $ surplus. Economy went from being on life support to roaring ahead.
• Per capita income. Per capita income grew at the rate of 2.1% annually between 1993 - 1998 and 2.8% annually between 1999 and 2005.

• Life expectancy
  
  1993 - 77.7
  2005 - 80.1

• Infant morality.
  
  Infant morality: 5.4 per 1000 births in 2005.
  
  6.3 Per 1000 births in 1993.

• % of children living below poverty line.
  
  1993 - 22%
  2005 - 17.6%

• 1993: overall crime rate - more than 10,000 per 100,000 populations.
  
  2003 : overall crime rate: 8132 per 100,000 population

I have provided links to all these statistics in my original post.

Let us recap. After 13 years of Liberal rule, Canadians are richer, safer and live longer. The prosperity is shared by the poor as well as by the middle class; child poverty is down (though not down to the same level it was before Mulroney caused serious damage, caused a serious increase in child poverty).

It was truly a golden age in Canada. When conservatives came to power, of course, the economic shenanigans started almost immediately. One of the first acts of Harper was to give tax cuts (benefiting mostly the rich) which wiped out most of the surplus. Now we are looking at huge deficits as far as the eye can see.

Being a conservative, I can understand that you are proud of Messiah and ashamed of Chrétien/Martin, that is to be expected. However, objective facts don’t support your view. Canada prospered like never before under Chrétien/.Martin.

I would agree that Chretien / Martin did wonderful things to balance the budget.....but, at the same time, their "Golden Age" was largely financed by things put in place by Lyin' Brian.......Free Trade and the GST, both of which the Liberals (typically) campaigned to replace.......and did neither.

As for corruption, no administration in Canadian history comes close to the Chretien one...........the man is a gangster. Assault, conspiracy (in the Hotel affair) undue use of power......he used the RCMP as his own personal gestapo, against Mulrooney, at APEC, against those that tried to expose his shady dealings, and most shockingly, against Beaudoiun, the President of the BDBC, who refused to bankroll Chretien's shady deals. The man is scum.......yes, worse than Mulrooney.

And I haven't even touched on the misappropration of tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars lost in the Sponsorship Scandal........in which I am convinced both Chretien and Martin were in to their respective noses.

Chretien was, after all, PM and a Quebec MP.....Martin controled the Quebec's formidable political Liberal machine....they didn't know?????

Spare me.

And the further destruction of the Canadian military.....the helicopter thing alone is a scandal of immense proportion......and the use of military funds to buy a Dash 7 for his use????

OMG, don't get me going.

I have often said Chretien's greatest feat as PM was to make Mulrooney look like a relatively honest man.

Those are the "objective facts"

And I am no fan of Lyin' Brian.

I was a Reformer early on because of his shenanigans..........

 

[Colpy]

The man was dangerous.....he killed Canada as we knew it.

Colpy, really? Then how did he keep winning election after election? Even now he is very popular in Ontario and Quebec (As least he was according to the last poll I saw, which was a while ago).

You may not like him, and no doubt he had many faults. However, in my opinion, his repatriation of constitution and giving us the Charter trumps it all.

Really.

I am no big fan of our constitution........

And I have made a personal pledge to myself.........a top three item on my "Bucket List"......I shall travel to Ottawa to visit the statue of PET.....and piss on his leg.